>> wl, if you would like me to exexplain, -- >> i would le an answer, yes or no. >> i will not t gigive y a yes or no. is moree complicated than n that. my answer is i will defer that judgment to history. >> chuck hagel andhe battle for the pentagon. >> the good ws is, for the first timen many years republican and democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. >> the immigration problem. has somebody been reading exit polls? >> too many children are dying.

too many children. >> also, the fight over guns. >> law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violence or deranged criminals. >> and the word on hillary in 2016. ll she or won't she? >> i have no pls to run. >> thursday was not a good day for chucuck hagel, president obama's choice to be his next def ense secretary. his old pal and fellow vietnam veteran john mccain jump all over him for opposing the surge in iraq. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said that th surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country sincecorrect or incorrect?

yes or no? >> my reference to -- >> are you going to answer the question? the questions, were you right or wrong? that is a pretty sime question. i would like for you to answer right or wrong, then you are free to elaborate. >> i am nott going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> b the record show that you refuse to answer the question. >> he finally gave the answer he wanted to give. >> i saw the consequences and suffering and horror of war, so i did question a surge. is this going to be worth the sacrifice? we lost almost 1200 american during that surge. was it reqred, was it necessary? >> how much of that exchange was political, how much wawas personal, and how much risk related to the defense policy? >> 92, 11, 13. a lot of it was personal.

one could not watched those hearings without feeling there were a lot of personal grudges and even vendettas being settled. >> senator cornyn of texas says he cannot support a nominee foror defense secretaryho things we should be tougher on israel and more lenient on an. is that a fair characterization of chuck hagel? >> what was importatant about the hearings yesterday, the ne -- which we ought tbe discussing -- is not the content of what has been said. that has already been hashed out. noeven his veracity, since he changed his mind on n lf a doz issues overnight. but on his competence. the reason democrats s were shocked by his performance was because he displayeded amazing closeness on a variety of issues. the clip you should have shown which higighlighted, was the

example of what happened in the hearings, the one in which he showed he did not understand the idea of coninment against iran a major issue of our time. i will talk about that afterwards. his problem was that he was stumbling, bumbling, and looked completely out of hiss depth. that is what people had not seen about him before. >> it was obvious anybody who spends any time with h chuck hagel knows -- even his greatest admirers -- know that he is not a vbally-small person. that is the nice way to put it. but it does not mean that he will not be a good defense secretary. what was fascicinating to me, here were his former colleagues on his side of the aisle, who were perfectly happy to swift vote johnerry and then vote for him -- i thing there were three dissenting votes. here they have someone that they agree with far more than they do

with john kerry on foreign popolicy, and they just trashed him. >> does chuck hagel have the know-how to ntain a bureaucracy with the pentagon? >> what wasnteresting before the recess, he was unsteady with his answers and grasp of the facts. later in the aftfternoon, the third round of hearings, after he was more surere-footed, did d he have the capacity? i think so. if you listen to his exchanges with senat king from maine, talking about the management of the defenseepartment, it was a much more competent answer. >> what about this jewish lobby business? he apologized for using that phrase. listen to this exchange with lindsey gram. >> name one person who is intimited by the israeli lobby in the united states. >> the use of intimidation -- i

should have used influence. >> he could not name one pern publblicly. this is gamesmanship of the first ororder. you have conversations with plty of members of congress, and they feel one way about some of the issues in the middl east, feel thathey simply cannot move an inch on that. >> is he in command of the issues he will be grappling with? >> i do not think anybody would have come off wl. it was a halting performance by chuck hagel. chuck hagel, to underline what nina sd earlier is not a verbally-nimble person. not somebody known for sound bites, not somebody that you would go to for a quotation on a deadline. he would give the thoughtful context. >> god forbid.wright, who once context?

[laughter] i cod not get over the badger and quality. yes or no. yeoro, senator. john mccain was looking for viication for the surge. chuck hagel was not going to give it to him. >> john mccain is not the issue it is chuck hagel. his prproblem is not synta it is elementary knowledge. he spoke about the government of iran as a legitimate elected government. we know that the revolutution of 2009 was sparked by the fact that it was a rigd election, at an illegitimate government. the clip i wanted you to show was the one in which he was asked about the policy of contaient. it was not a bad during issue. he said, yes i support the administration's policy on containment. he then received a note and

says i he been told i made a mistake. of course, i am not in support of that.t. the policy of this administration on containining is that it does not have a policy. at which point, democratic senator levin had to rescue him and said, in fact, the administration has a policy of containment, and it is to oppose it. he was clueless. >> colby. clueless? >> he was in a position where he had to dodge a little bit. let'go back to the exchange with senator mccain on the surge.e. the issue was never the surge when you talk about iraq. thee issue, as senator nelson from fllorida framed it, going into iraq becausese we thought their weaponof mass destruction. we end up with 4000 americans dead $1.90 trillion from the war, and you tell me the issue is the surge? the issue was going into the

country in the first place. >> how did he voten the more? he voted yes. >> so did nelson, because they thought there were bands of mass destruction to that is what the bush administration said. >> are portraying him as an anti-war hero. >> chuck hagel had the decency and integrity hing voted to go to war, to come out against the war and apologized for the decision he made. something that has not been done by the hawks that took us to that w, told us their weapons of mass destruction, and that they knew in where they were. >> we have toto move along. immigration reform. rerepublican get the message.

>> a process thahat includes

passssing a background check, paying taxes paying a penalty learning english, and then going to the back of the line behind all the folks tried to come here legally. >> we have fundamentaestions of lawfulness. do we have a system that will stop the continued flow of immigrants into the country? >> 11 1 million undocumented immigrants in the united states. what do you do with them? according to the few research center the president won 71% of the hispanic vote. is immigration reform possible at this timime, charles? >> absolutely. because of the election results, there are a lot of republblicans who are open to this, want to get this off the table. we have the bipartisan gangf eight, including john mccain and more rubioio -- marco rubio who are on board. there are significant problem withth the proposal.

it may not pass because of those problems, but when you heard the president speak a about the back of the line, that is quite deceptive. if you are applied to get in the united states from hong kong or brazill the illegal immigrants in the u. may have to go to the back of thee line, but yoyou are waiting in the u.s., legal in the u.s., working in the u.s., you have everything you want having arrived the other guys are waiting in brazil and hong kong. the line here is one where you are already in the united states. >> charles is right about that but that is the point, getting rid of the shadow economy, the shadowow estence. getting these folks on the path to citizenship. if you know anybody who has been here initially illegally, youu know even when they get a green card, their entirire existence is devoted to getting citizenship.

a green card is not their only desire. >> what about senator sessions' point about thehe unlawful flow of people into the country? >> the way we always have, and we have got much better. if you look at the n numbers of people who are caught at t -- some of this petition is due to the economy but a great deal of it is not. you just have to look to the resources we have put in and the successes. at som point, it is case of diminishing returns. you cannot makit like east berlin on the border.. itit is too big of a border. we cannot do that. but you can be very tough about it. >> all you need to stem the flow of immigration is an economy like the one we had this country for the fst 10 years iin the 21st century. that will do it. the idea of coming to share in

americican prosperity and was quickly dashed. let's be blunt about this, mitt romney ran an entire campaig for the nomination based upon his all-out opposition to illegal immigration, tarnishingng his opponents rick perry, john mccain in 2008 accusing of wanting to give social security to aliens, as he called them. tarnishing newt gingrichn 2012, mike huckabee. itit was always the $10100,00 gift to these people to go to states' rights. the republicans understand th now. john mccain was blunt about it, that his own state is going blew in a hurry o on us republicans make a dramatic difference. one figureo remember. 1960the countr was 3.5% hispanic. in 2011, 17%. in 2050, it wiwill be 29%.

whitesill have gone from 85% of the national population, down to 40% inn that 90 yr time span. >> interesting numbers. >> yes, but we will be kind. [laughter] >> say that in spanish. [laughter] >> my brhers and i will be kind. the reality is, we are not going to send 11 million people back where they came, we are to keep them here, as it should be. the problem will come in from those who d do not feel there i enough enforcement on the books. thosee individuals will probay pick up the argument that is being advanced by our colleague charles. that is not the main issue here

defense. >> san diego put ua triple- strand fence that has decreased apprehenon by 92%. it works. we ought tat least try it. the fact that nobody wants to is an indicati of unseriousness ab

>> we must do something. it will be hard, but the timeme is now you must act. >> when it comes to background checks, let's be host background checks will never be universal because criminals will never submit to them. my wife would not be sitting in

this seat -- she would not have been sitting here today -- if we had strongnger background checks. >> you get the drift of the hearing. on the day of the inauguration, i spoke to an australiaian gentleman who said, i love america but i do not understand your attitude on guns. his control of this issue a pipe dream? is it finally possible? >> something is stirring out there against the nra. you have a genuine outpouring of something to be done on this issue. i do not think we willll see a ban on assault weapons. i think we might see tougher background checks, p particularly at the sale of weapons on a privaate basis, but clearly there has to be a movement. we will en end gun violence with legislation, but we woul be taking a big step towards changing the thinking about guns

and the possession of guns. >> doesn't wayne lapierre have a point though? background checks cannot keep a criminalrom using a gun. >> under that theory, we have lost about murder. they are going to kill people anyway. wayne lapierre and the nra used to support universal background check 10 years ago or so. >> what happened? >> i do not understand it. they have become more unreasonable, i would say. i do not think we are going to get much of anything now. but this is not going away. >> nina is right. it is rather fascinating to watch the dynamic of t thehe nra, at this point. david cain the president, the white-haired man, is the good cop. longtime conservative leader. a longtime nra board member. he has actually come out for

universal background checks. lapierre is the more strident, more bombasticic, take no prisoners. this is a losing fight for the nra. if we punish people fomaking false statements on mortgage applications that some bank will be hurt, when itit comes to gun that is even more serious. >> i think the background check will pass, over 90% approval in public opinion polls maybe the size of the magagazine clip. a limit of 10. i think the assault weapons ban which woululd be a recapitulation of what we tried in 1994 is less likely. in the end, it will not make a difference, the same as the one in 1994. thproblem is this. it grandfathered in the weapons

the people already have. there are 300 million in circulation in the u.s. today. if you do not confiscate them which nobody contemplates, it would take 100 years to work out an inventory. that i is the reason it will not work. i understand everybody wants to show some appearance of the motion, but it will not have an effect. >> a word on at embassy suites, you get more delicious moreness every morning with a free breakfast made just the way you like it. with a breakfast like this, you could pretty much handle anything. anything? anything. [ screams ] a rambunctious toddler? of course. uncle ralph? sure. a roman gladiator? you bet. the thing under my bed? why not? ♪ ♪ yes. [ female announcer ] get more with embassy suites. book early and save up to 20%.

>> i have got enormous amounts of ergy that needed to be harnessed, focused. i am very fortunate, looking forward t to this next chapter in my life. >> hillary clinton outgoing secretary of state. what chapter wouould that be? >> i think it is the resurrection. this is somebody who left the presidential campaign bruing in 200 to see her potentially eight years later as theverwhelmingg

front runner for the demomocratic nomination is a remarkable comeback. >> john kerry of proof for secrary of state 94-3. what are his biggest challenges? >> remaining consistent with the administtion's policy. that will be a challenge. that he does that go outn his own and makeke his own policy. i do not see him perform in a way that hillary clinton performed. she was rt of 18. he has wanted this job for so long and bad day he has no notion of what the secretary of state should look like. i think he could be a problem. >> , to say a word about hillary clinton. we see how greater presence has been, what a sucuccessful secretary of state she has been. any time conservatives can, they want to o take a knifeo her throat. she always turns its back on them. shhasmerged as an incredibl force. i do not know which does but i

hope she does what is best for her and us. >> this chapter of her life e is entitled, iowa a new hampshire. >> ed koch former new yk mayor who died this week. >> and maverick, a character, a good man, a quintessential new yorker. a great american story. we will mimiss h. >>hot, bashful -- no, no. that is the wrong guy. [laughter] combativive spirit 21 times in 26 years he asked voters how he was doing. he was made to be mayor of new york. he lost camaro cuomo in the primary. he proved that he was not interested in going beyond. >> he was a jewish laguardia. >> america has its aracters of different regions and ethnicities. in that sense, he was a quintessential american character. >> colby?

>> colorful. >> i was interviewing him one time and he stopped in the middle and said, this iseay good stuff. i would like a copy of this. >> ed koch, dead at the age of 88. we will remember him. that is the last word. see you next week.